KALU RAM GUPTA Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 21st March, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Appeal No. 21/96, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, was rejected by the learned trial court.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit for eviction was filed by the petitioner -defendant before the trial court on the grounds of default, and bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs - respondents under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') since the shop premise was let out to the petitioner in the year 1981 and the suit for eviction was filed on 18th June, 1992 on the above said grounds. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the course of proceedings before the learned trial court an ex -parte order came to be passed against the petitioner on.26.11.92 and ex -parte decree was drawn up against the petitioner on 23.1.93 and that the petitioner who was represented by a power of attorney before the learned trial court did not inform the petitioner regarding the ex -parte decree and this intimation was conveyed to him belatedly on 16.2.95. As soon as the petitioner became aware of this fact he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex -parte order before the learned trial court on 17.7.95. The said application was rejected by the trial court against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge who after hearing the parties rejected the said appeal on 5.10.95. Against the said order rejecting the petitioner application a revision was preferred before this Court vide Civil Revision No. 1247/95 which was rejected on 6.11.95 and this Court granted two months' time to the petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents -plaintiffs. Being dissatisfied with the said order of this Court Special Leave Petition was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which came up for hearing before the Apex Court on 3rd January, 1996. The Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the petitioner on merits but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the time earlier granted by the High Court for vacating the premises was extended by the Apex Court till 31st March, 1996 on the same terms as laid -down by the High Court.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Shyamal Kanti Danda v. Chunilal Choudhary reported in : AIR1984SC1732 . The question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether the delay of 386 days which had occurred on the part of the petitioner on the ground of having pursued alternative remedies under legal advise could be condoned by the Court of competent jurisdiction? The Apex Court while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case directed the petitioner to deposit the due amount on account of occupation charges for the user of the tenanted premises in question within the stipulated time and on the petitioner complying with the said condition condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the learned District Judge and accordingly permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the learned Munsiff after setting aside the ex -parte order.